(Original post by pshewitt1)
I struggle to see the importance of Marriage though? it brings nothing apart from stately benefits which should have been removed anyway? on top of this marriage is mainly a religious bonding, should the person performing the marriage have a choice rather than the government which is independent of these institutions? the people comparing this to racial abuse really need to get a grip though, you cannot compare what gays are going through now to what the blacks went through before...

Well, the Chruch of England is part of the state so it ought not to discriminate on any grounds. However, once you allow religion to discriminate it can do so on other grounds. I see no reason why a religion cannot discriminate on grounds of race, while others can do so on sexuality. Marriage, even if performed by a church, is not completely religious because they do not sanction divorce as this is done through the family courts rather than a religious institution. I don't think I've ever heard of Christians moaning about the state interfering with divorce for decades.

However would they decide which one is at the altar and which one walks up it, or who proposes????

On a serious note, this fear of homosexual gaining more rights is equivalent to the protestants eventualya giving the catholic more rights, or the whites giving blacks more rights, alot of reactionary views until it becomes acceptable. Just have to stick with it.

Legalise gay marriage, legalise single sex adoption, might this mean the church establishes a separate system though?

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I understand that some people think that marriage isn't important, but also some people do think it's important, and why should they be denied the opportunity to get married?

Marriage is not mainly a religious bonding. You can have a religious marriage or a non-religious marriage. This argument would apply that atheists and say they can't get married. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry gay couples if they don't want to - but why shouldn't they be able to get a civil marriage.
Also, marriage pre-dates religion.

And why is it not comparable? They're being denied rights because of something that they have no control over for no justifiable reason.

by all means if it's a state marriage (was unaware that this even existed, link me something?) then go ahead, but when it comes to slating religions because of out of date rules, even if they are out of date would be sinful to that religion. It's like forcing communists into capitalism. I'm all for gays to be married if it's that important to them, but either way it could not be religious because nearly all the major one's somewhere state anti homosexuality do they not? I'm definitely not religious but i am a theist, if a state marriage does exist by all means.

What proof do you have of marriage pre- dating religion? or at least some kind of religion? even the cave men had their religions? so somehow I doubt it...

yea, but nowhere near to the extent that the blacks were enslaved, tortured, lynched this list is endless. It's like comparing genocide to a mild beating....

Personally, I believe that marriage is a religious institution, and if religion doesn't accept it, why should they be married in front of the belief system (in front of the cross in christianity, or around the fire in hinduism)? Saying that, I completely support civil partnership (simply signing a piece of paper to make a formal government declaration and has nothing to do with religion) and equal legal status of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.

(Original post by pshewitt1)
by all means if it's a state marriage (was unaware that this even existed, link me something?) then go ahead, but when it comes to slating religions because of out of date rules, even if they are out of date would be sinful to that religion. It's like forcing communists into capitalism. I'm all for gays to be married if it's that important to them, but either way it could not be religious because nearly all the major one's somewhere state anti homosexuality do they not? I'm definitely not religious but i am a theist, if a state marriage does exist by all means.

The point is that the church thinks it can have a say on civil marriage. It was in the news recently that the church thought that gay people shouldn't be allowed marriage and this would cause a rift between the state and religion because religion didn't approve - when civil marriage is nothing to do with religion.

What proof do you have of marriage pre- dating religion? or at least some kind of religion? even the cave men had their religions? so somehow I doubt it...

Marriage pre-dates modern religion.

yea, but nowhere near to the extent that the blacks were enslaved, tortured, lynched this list is endless. It's like comparing genocide to a mild beating....

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Well, the Chruch of England is part of the state so it ought not to discriminate on any grounds. However, once you allow religion to discriminate it can do so on other grounds. I see no reason why a religion cannot discriminate on grounds of race, while others can do so on sexuality. Marriage, even if performed by a church, is not completely religious because they do not sanction divorce as this is done through the family courts rather than a religious institution. I don't think I've ever heard of Christians moaning about the state interfering with divorce for decades.

but surely under their own holy book they would be violating 1000 year old out of date laws? I just don't think it's right to force institutions to marry people. religion doesn't discriminate coloured people because nowhere does it state they would ' go to hell' so to speak... hence why. That sentence didn't make much sense, no the marriage itself is completely religious the divorce isn't, that isn't then the churches business, but because of divorce marriage has become inundated and worthless to many, hence the increase in divorce rates, No not recently but I'm sure in king Henry' time there were many arguments, like I said Marriage is becoming more worthless, if two gay people stuck together forever as stated in the vows then they should have more right than two people who would divorce in 5 years. I just still struggle to see the importance of the marriage aspect apart from the perks it brings because of the state?

(Original post by butter_god)
Personally, I believe that marriage is a religious institution, and if religion doesn't accept it, why should they be married in front of the belief system (in front of the cross in christianity, or around the fire in hinduism)? Saying that, I completely support civil partnership (simply signing a piece of paper to make a formal government declaration and has nothing to do with religion) and equal legal status of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.

Well, whatever you believe, civil marriage is nothing to do with religion. Nobody is trying to force churches to marry gay people if they don't believe in it (although those that think it's fine should be able to, but the legislation that the government is trying to push wouldn't allow that I believe), but a civil partnership is not the same as a civil marriage - which is what the argument is about.

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
The point is that the church thinks it can have a say on civil marriage. It was in the news recently that the church thought that gay people shouldn't be allowed marriage and this would cause a rift between the state and religion because religion didn't approve - when civil marriage is nothing to do with religion.

Marriage pre-dates modern religion.

What does that have to do with marriage?

ok on that point fair enough, they should be made to shut up.

you can't just state things like that with no backing? religion has been around for as long as people (smart people looking to control others mind you)

nothing I was answering your last phrase...about comparing the struggle black people went through to that of homosexuals...

yea, but nowhere near to the extent that the blacks were enslaved, tortured, lynched this list is endless. It's like comparing genocide to a mild beating....

Homosexuality was more often than not a death sentence (metaphorically, although sometimes literally) throughout history.

Even in recent history homosexuals suffered systematic persecution during WW2 and up until the 1950's the "crime" of homosexuality brought an immense amount of social and legal pressure down on individuals, causing some to commit suicide, rather than face the indignation of chemical castration or prison. Does the name Alan Turing mean anything to you?

(Original post by pshewitt1)
ok on that point fair enough, they should be made to shut up.

you can't just state things like that with no backing? religion has been around for as long as people (smart people looking to control others mind you)

A quick google reveals that marriage pre-dates recorded history. Cavemen may have had religions, but unless you have evidence that their religions - like modern religions - are against homosexuality, I don't know what your point is.

nothing I was answering your last phrase...about comparing the struggle black people went through to that of homosexuals...

So because they had it worse they're now more entitled to rights?
Also, it's still illegal to be gay in some countries. Gay teens are committing suicide because of homophobic bullying. As Carter78 said, Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay. Not that it makes a difference, they're still as entitled to rights regardless of their 'struggle' but it's not as mild as some people make it out to be.

(Original post by Carter78)
Homosexuality was more often than not a death sentence (metaphorically, although sometimes literally) throughout history.

Even in recent history homosexuals suffered systematic persecution during WW2 and up until the 1950's the "crime" of homosexuality brought an immense amount of social and legal pressure down on individuals, causing some to commit suicide, rather than face the indignation of chemical castration or prison. Does the name Alan Turing mean anything to you?

Anyway, we are talking about the injustice being metted out to homosexuals today.

it still is, although it is the government and not the peoples in middle eastern countries who want it done, but where is the enslavement?

I had not heard of Alan Turing, the article is disturbing to say the least :/
but I still cannot justify in my mind that you can compare what the blacks go through even now compared to homosexuals. maybe it's because of more exposure to it all...

however on another point, you still cannot make religious institutions marry homosexual peoples, not if it goes against their religious code, surely?

(Original post by pshewitt1)
but surely under their own holy book they would be violating 1000 year old out of date laws? I just don't think it's right to force institutions to marry people. religion doesn't discriminate coloured people because nowhere does it state they would ' go to hell' so to speak... hence why. That sentence didn't make much sense, no the marriage itself is completely religious the divorce isn't, that isn't then the churches business, but because of divorce marriage has become inundated and worthless to many, hence the increase in divorce rates, No not recently but I'm sure in king Henry' time there were many arguments, like I said Marriage is becoming more worthless, if two gay people stuck together forever as stated in the vows then they should have more right than two people who would divorce in 5 years. I just still struggle to see the importance of the marriage aspect apart from the perks it brings because of the state?

Homosexuality and the Bible is like a minefield. Some of the reasons for opposing it are in the books of the Old Testament, like Leviticus. When you cite other areas of the Old Testament, you may be corrected that the New Testament should be followed. The Anglican community is not forced to be part of the state, they have the right to disestablish and this is apaprently what Rowan Williams would like. If MPs started to disestablish the Church of England there may be resistence for the changes to occur. Can you imagine what our laws would be like if they were modelled on the Old Testament though? Rapist? Death by tent peg to the temple. Involuntary manslughter? Exile. And we'd have to change our definition of murder too.

I see divorce as part of the institution of marriage even if it is the end of one, if that makes sense. So it would be unwise to focus on the start of a ceremony and not the end. I don't see the fuss with marriage myself but others do.

A quick google reveals that marriage pre-dates recorded history. Cavemen may have had religions, but unless you have evidence that their religions - like modern religions - are against homosexuality, I don't know what your point is.

So because they had it worse they're now more entitled to rights?
Also, it's still illegal to be gay in some countries. Gay teens are committing suicide because of homophobic bullying. As Carter78 said, Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay. Not that it makes a difference, they're still as entitled to rights regardless of their 'struggle' but it's not as mild as some people make it out to be.

but what proof of any of that do we actually have, it's just guesswork? I'd like to find out more before discussing the matter further

No I did not know much of what Carter showed me, but their is still the whole enslavement things, like I said to him, maybe I feel that way due to over exposure to the indecency to coloured people.

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Even if you ignore the history point, civil marriage and religious marriage are separate, so why does it matter what the religions think?

Why are they more deserving of rights because they suffered more?

Well you already made that point and I agreed?

I'm not saying they are, I think you forget what this was about, I'm saying the two struggles aren't really comparable, the situations are very different. Even if there was killings, enslavements is a whole other tier

(Original post by M'Ling)
I wonder if it's less to do with seeing homosexuals as inferior, rather the opposition concerns the raising of children.

Marriage, traditionally, was for the bringing up of children, and people worry about giving homosexuals the right to marriage because of their reserves about allowing gay people to adopt.

I think you've got it completely right, this is probably the main reason for opposition to gay marriage.
I personally do not support gay marriage, for two reasons. I am a Christian and although I do not have any sort of problem with gay people (I have both friends and relatives who are gay and really couldn't care less), the Bible says that "marriage is the union of one man and one woman before God for the bringing forth of children". Now obviously those of you who aren't Christian (which I'm aware is many) won't agree with this, and yes I am aware that gay couples already can adopt. However My aunt and her parter (another woman) have 3 children together, conceived by sperm donation. Whilst I love my cousins dearly, and the girls are doing very well, I and several others in my family can't help but feel that he seriously lacks a male role model in life and in time this is going to be seriously detrimental to him.

Please actually read this post before replying, don't just see that I'm Christian and start mindlessly insulting me.

(Original post by pshewitt1)
I'm not saying they are, I think you forget what this was about, I'm saying the two struggles aren't really comparable, the situations are very different. Even if there was killings, enslavements is a whole other tier

The struggles for equal marriage rights are the same. Sure, black people had to go through an earlier struggle to be released from slavery etc. but when talking about marriage rights they are exactly the same.

It's maybe worth noting at this point that "homosexuality" is in itself a modern, Western construct. What we see as homosexuality the ancient Greeks would have seen as an addition to marriage, or the natural comaradarie of soldiers- and that's not even acknowledging the history of and response to gay women and whether or not women are inherently sexual or not. As such discussing homosexual marriage in an historical context is irrelevant.

That aside, the Church's own viewpoints have changed with the years on many matters and there's enough in the bible to support and oppose gay marriage. David and Jonathon are a classic example of where scholars disagree over whether or not their relationship was "homosexual", but it nonetheless seemed sanctioned by God.

AND that any "Christian" animosity towards homosexuals founded on anything in the Old Testament is redundent seeing as, according to the New Testament, Jesus died in order to override those beliefs and set about a new philosophy based on love, and that the Old Testament exists within the Bible in order to give context to his life.

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
The struggles for equal marriage rights are the same. Sure, black people had to go through an earlier struggle to be released from slavery etc. but when talking about marriage rights they are exactly the same.

oh ok, now I'm with you
I have no idea about that bit, weren't some blacks forced into marriages?

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
Haha, that was posted on my wall by a bigoted idiot.
I pointed out to him that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals, in terms of their relationships being healthy expressions of human sexuality, and he's an idiot for saying they're not. And also that there is a simple distinction - people who are homosexuals say 'I am homosexual' and people who are heterosexual say 'I am heterosexual'. He didn't respond after that.

By definition homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals because they're unable to have kids, in the same way that a fertile person is superior to an infertile person. Does this make me a homophobe? I would say no, its just an honest appraisal of the facts. I'm a shade over 6ft but if I'm honest would prefer to be 6.3/6.4, in this respect I consider taller people to be superior to me. This doesn't mean I'm prejudiced against shorter people.